New Naval Race Much Like the Old

As with the nautical marvels of 100 years ago, the Dreadnought battleship, a new naval race is brewing in the world today, this time with the building of large deck aircraft carriers. We wonder if the past rivalries on the oceans that eventually led to a century of destructive warfare, might also be repeating itself as precious funds are summoned from more useful exertions to enhance the prestige of rising and traditional seapowers.

There are currently 21 aircraft carriers and numerous aviation capable ships in the navies of the world today, with more than half belonging to the US Navy. There are also 7 such vessels under construction, with China, Russia, and India expressing interest in acquiring up to 6 for their respective fleets. In future decades America intends to replace the 10-strong Nimitz class with 10 similar Ford class aircraft carriers, the first of which is already under construction. Recently Japan has commissioned a new “helicopter destroyer” that some claim could also operate V/STOL aircraft at some future date, causing surrounding nations such as South Korea to plan such ships for themselves.

This new rivalry between nations couldn’t come at a worse time, with ongoing wars in the Middle East and the rising asymmetrical threats at sea with piracy. Both of these more immediate concerns do not require large and intimidating new battleships, and these very costly to operate, maintain, and protect vessels are actually hurting the effort to bring about peace. Just as the dreadnoughts of the last century drained precious funds for the war effort in the First World War, so do the aircraft carriers drain scarce moneys for new equipment from the “boots on the Ground” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically Britain had almost lost the war because of these crude leviathans; they required so many escorts to protect them that it proved impossible for the Admiralty to supply sufficient destroyers to convoy merchant shipping.

Even more bizarre, the New Naval Race of the 21st century, this time with aircraft carriers instead of gun-armed battleships, is again affecting Great Britain. After its recent apparent failure in Iraq, and an ongoing struggle in Afghanistan, the Army is in dire straits, and needlessly so, according to this opinion article from the UK Times:

It is clear enough what Iraq needed and Afghanistan needs: more men, more helicopters, better armoured protection – the same as in Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. But what of future war?…War among the people, whether inter-state or counter-insurgency, needs, above all, state-of-the art intelligence and general purpose infantrymen; it needs the type of aircraft that can support them – helicopters not more Eurofighters; it needs ships able to control coastal waters in the way that troops control the streets – frigates not Leviathan aircraft carriers.

Indian Carrier INS Viraat

Britain, having once before discarded her World War 2 era flattops for smaller carriers in the 1970’s, is seeing the handwriting on the wall, and has delayed her 2 giant ships to cut costs. Still the aircraft carrier, like the battleship of a bygone age, is a symbol of national power and the sign of a modern navy. As a symbol their giant bulk can be very intimidating, but also tempting to a rising navy wishing to make a name for itself. As such awesome harbingers of force, they themselves have become targets of destruction. Thus, instead of decreasing the likelihood of war, the possession of such fearsome weapons actually increases the risk of conflict.

Ships which we never have enough of, frigates, coastal corvettes, patrol craft, even submarines would be more useful and less intimidating to other navies. In our recent land wars, COIN experts will insist that “the lightest, most indirect and least intrusive form of intervention…will achieve the necessary effect.” So would these smaller “Influence Squadrons” also be less intimidating, more effective, and certainly less a drain on strained defense budgets.

Like this:

Related

“Having a flattop as part of a task force takes a lot of pressure from the surface combatants”

And adds some of its own, such as the need to be protected from the threat of small boats, or stealthy submarines, and aircraft armed with cruise missiles. Concerning size, we think any aviation capable ship is an asset to a navy, and plan to prove this in an upcoming article.

Charles-The Marine carriers do provide an awesome capability all their own. Even if we had no larger supercarrier in service, these hybrid carriers would give us the most powerful naval-borne airpower on earth.

Quick Note: Only the USN’s CVNs, not the LHAs and LHDs, are counted as carriers while other nations’ vessels that are largely equivalent to the LHA/LHDs are being counted?

With 7 (soon 8) WASP-class LHDs, 2 remaining TARAWA-class LHAs, and the start of the LHA-6 (AMERICA)-class ships, wouldn’t the US hold something more like 2/3rds of the world’s large shipborne aviation capacity?

Having a flattop as part of a task force takes a lot of pressure from the surface combatants, insofar as the need for large aviation complexes on them is reduced, thus enabling smaller ships, even your beloved corvettes.

Takes us of course back to the question of the size of that flattop. From flight deck cruiser as minimum, to Cavour sized multirolers with some amphib capability as a middle ground, to a medium fleet carrier as the max. No space for supercarriers here. Shall see how the Russians, Chinese and Indians see that.

Having read this I believed it was really informative. I appreciate you spending some time and effort to put this short article together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and leaving comments. But so what, it was still worthwhile!